After having watched the
movie, I realized that it is not worth spending my intellectual powers on this
would-be masterpiece of Russian art. But there is one point that made my brains
work – why would they put this film in the main program of Cannes Film Festival
(here and after – CFF). A few words about the film at first. Having no deal
with the first part in the area of depth and not touching the intellect of the
audience even tangentially the film reveals the further story of Mayor Kotov
and his family during the first two years of WWII. War pathos mixed with
Hollywood clichés and combined with all distinguished Russian actors’
participation in the third-rate roles make us believe that the movie is
another war epic – merciless, money-laundering and involving Mikhalkov’s family
in starring. So, how would this thing have come up to the CFF? 36 mln dollars
spent on the picture may make us think that some of the money was invested in advertisement
by blackmailing or bribering towards the CFF organizers. Who would know for
sure, but showing the picture in Cannes would bring a great success in Europe, I
guess, it would even make the Europeans believe that Ruskies can produce not
worse than Hollywood makers. More than that after the first part’s raging success
among the independent movie audience the second one should represent something
even more deep. One should remind that the 1994’s picture got Oscar Award for the
Best Picture in Foreing language in that year. The verdict can be the following
– the picture has neither right nor chance to get either Golden Palm Branch or
any other Award on the 63rd CFF.As I like to say – the 23rd, May will show the truth.
Max, do you have the movie? Can you bring it? I don't know why, but I haven't bought it yet, though I have seen and touched the DVD many times while shopping? There is a strong feeling of worry inside. Afraid to get disappointed after reading your comments.
Overall impression makes me think that it's not woth anything. "does the film have a real war story that has meaning for people" - a typical opinion, like, why, the film is about war, how can you be so inhuman and decline it? Why, what should I say, if people earn money on sufferings of millions of people, hiding the real aim behind the heart-breaking oh-so-touching war story.
Don't understand the point. Do you mean to say that the project was just about moneylaundering? Where did you read all that stuff? When I asked about a real war story, I did precisely so - asked the question with no reltion to money but to art and the artistic message. Yes, message - not the budget. It's good that Mikhalkov has managed to create his own Mikhalkovwood and films his own family. It is one of the best film companies in Russia. I doubt that you should talk only about money. Do you remember his movie "12"?
Yes, and it was very exaggerated, so to say the essence of the time. And I surely believe that we should consider the movie from the point of view of artistic message, but what does one's subjective opinion mean to us? Nothing. Let's take into consideration dozens of historical mistakes made by Mikhalkov - that's the first sign of the aim of the picture. (one thing that stroke me - he really beleives that Red Cross took place in the USSR. Some polititologists say that this is the main reason for so many dead Russians in foreign concentration camps)
Can't agree. When talking of exaggeration, it's important to know that this is a method used by the majority of ariters and movie makers. Histrocial mistakes can never a criterion to judge the quality of a movie. You should judge and look into the author's viewpoint, his vaules, his depiction, his world. A work of art speaks to you. It is a thought addressed to you. It is a momentum to make you stop to think or feel or see in a new way, in a new mood, in a new situation. Art is always a dialogue.
This is an example of how cinema influenced our understanding of art. We are made to regard many things as art, though they are not. Just think of the monuments of the world literature - how would you react on mistakes there? One should always single out things that are worth, and decline those that are not. This is the point. Many thought-provoking themes were raised in the soviet movies about war, but this very film seems more like Pvt. Rayan or smth - a mixture of horrors and pathos at the same time.
I think we need more details to understand the point. Could you enumirate the things you don't approve of in the movie? Try to be exact. Just say, 1) the plot is bad because..., 2) the acting is awful because... Thenb we will have a real subject natter for discussion. I think you are overjudging.
Dear 8davids8, why are saying that the movie exploits Hollywood cliches? Why are you saying that the movie is not worth being admitted into the 2010 CFF? What criteria do you use to judge whether the movie is a worthy motion picture or just a reel of snapshots? After all, does the film have a real war story that has meaning for people? Or is it just a good commercial project?
Shame on me, have not seen the first film but would like to watch this one. The only idea of Russians producing "not worse than Holywood makers", provokes a great interest and at the same time gives rise to doubt. The screenshots provided by you make it clear that the quality of the movie fits with World's movie standards, but there is another question:fits the idea with the quality? I hope i'll see the picture soon and describe my impressions here.
